"The said case has since been heard, and the said order of removal has been quashed for deficiency in the said examination, and not upon the merits. The Court of Queen's Bench having so quashed the said order of Sessions, on account of the word 'the' having been omitted in the said examination."

The case above referred to in the examination of James Hayes was then set out at length, for which see Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Leeds (5 Q. B. 907; 1 New Mag. Cas. 23). (a)

Then followed the notice of appeal (b) and of the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal were as follows:-"First, that true it is that a former order for the removal of the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his wife, as mentioned in the examination whereon the order now appealed against was made, and an order of Quarter Sessions confirming the same on appeal between the same parties as are parties to the appeal whereof we now give you notice, as in the said examination is alleged, were respectively quashed by the Court of Queen's Bench, upon the removal of the said first-mentioned order and order of Quarter Sessions, and the special case in the said examination also mentioned, into her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, by certiorari, and proceedings thereupon in the said Court of Queen's Bench duly had and taken in that behalf, according to law and the practice of the said Court of Queen's Bench, to wit, on the first day of May now last. And this ground of our appeal is, that the said last-mentioned orders were quashed by the said Court of Queen's Bench for the insufficiency of the examination whereon the said firstmentioned order was made, on the third objection in the said special case mentioned (that is to say): that it did not sufficiently appear upon, or by the examination last aforesaid, that the house mentioned therein was hired, and the rent for the same actually paid, by the said Matthew Redmayne, for the term of one whole year at the least. Wherefore, inasmuch as the last-mentioned orders were quashed upon a ground relating directly to the settlement of the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his said wife, on the day of the date of the said former order of removal, and no settlement having been gained by the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his said wife, or either of them, in the said township of Leeds, on or since the day of the date of the said last-mentioned order of removal, nor any such subsequent settlement being alleged in the order now appealed against, or the examination whereon the same was made, the said quashing of the said former orders is binding and conclusive between the parties, as to the last legal settlement of the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his said wife; and it was not lawful, at the time of making of the order now appealed against, to remove the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his said wife, or either of them, from the said township of Preston to the said township of Leeds, and the overseers of the poor of the said township of Preston ought not to have been permitted to allege before the said justices who made the order now appealed against, nor ought the respondents in this appeal to be permitted on the trial of this appeal to allege that the settlement of the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his wife, or either of them, was or is in the said township of Leeds. Secondly. That the said former order having been made and confirmed on appeal,

(a) In Reg. v. Leeds (5 Q. B. 907), the case concluded thus: "If the Court should be of opinion that the objections, or any or either of them, ought to have prevailed, the order of removal is to be quashed for the deficiency in the examination; if otherwise, the orders of removal and of Sessions are to be confirmed;" and the marginal note, so far as is material to the present case, is as follows:"If a pauper in his examination states that he took a house for a year at 191., and resided, &c., and paid rent' for the whole time of his tenancy, this

does not shew the house to have been held and 'the rent for the same' paid, within stat. 59 G. 3, c. 50." (b) The notice of appeal was in the following form:

This is to give notice to you and every of you, that the inhabitants of the township of Leeds, in the West Riding of the county of York, are aggrieved by an order, &c.; and that the overseers of the poor of the said township of Leeds do intend at the next General Quarter Sessions, &c., to prosecute and try an appeal against the said order." Signed by the overseers of the township of Leeds.

as is mentioned in the said examination whereon the said order now appealed against was made, the said special case, in the said examination also mentioned, was argued in due course of law, before the said Court of Queen's Bench, to wit, on the first day of May now last past. Whereupon it was then and there adjudged by the said Court of Queen's Bench that the said two former orders should be quashed, which said judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench related directly to the settlement of the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his said wife, at the day of date of the said former order of removal, which is the same ground of settlement now in question between the same parties, being the parties to the appeal, whereof notice is hereby given, and it is therefore binding and conclusive between them, so far as respects the place of the last legal settlement of the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his said wife, it not appearing in or by the said order now appealed against, or the examination whereon the same was made, that the said Matthew Redmayne, and Ann his said wife, have done any act to gain a settlement in the said township of Leeds subsequent to the date of the said former order of removal."

[The remaining grounds of appeal, assuming that the quashing of the former order was not conclusive, stated various objections to the present order. Thirdly. That the examinations did not shew that the paupers, at the date of the order, were inhabiting in the township of Preston. Fourthly. That the examinations did not shew that the paupers were inhabiting at any place within the jurisdiction of the justices who made it. Fifthly. Denial of the statements in the examination as to the renting of the tenement therein mentioned. Sixthly. A denial of the fact of settlement in the appellant parish.]

The case then set out the order (marked A) of the Court of Queen's Bench, of 1st of May, 1844, whereby the former order of removal, and the order of Sessions confirming the same, were "severally quashed." Then followed the rule nisi for quashing (B), the recognizance (C), and the writ of certiorari (D) in the former case.

On the trial of the appeal at the quarter sessions of the peace for the county of Lancaster, holden by adjournment at Preston aforesaid, and which said sessions commenced on Wednesday, the 1st day of January, 1845, it was, on the part of the respondents, objected to the notice of appeal that the parties therein stated to be the persons aggrieved were not those giving the notice of appeal. The Court of Quarter Sessions overruled the objection, subject to the opinion of this Court on the question first hereinafter stated. On the part of the appellants, it was objected that the examinations and the order of removal now appealed against were, respectively, insufficient and invalid, for the causes stated in the third and fourth grounds of appeal. The Court overruled this objection, subject to the opinion of this Court on the question secondly hereinafter stated. On the hearing, respondents proved that the paupers were settled in the township of Leeds, in manner stated in the examination.

The appellants further contended that the respondents were estopped and concluded by the judgment of this Court, on the case in the former appeal in the examination and statements of grounds aforesaid in this appeal respectively mentioned; and in support of the objections taken in the first and second grounds of this appeal, the appellants called as a witness Mr. Charles Naylor, the attorney for the appellants, who, being duly sworn, produced the documents hereunto annexed, and respectively marked A, B, C, D, and stated that he had obtained these documents at the Crown Office, in the King's Bench Walk, in the Temple, London. (The remainder of his evidence was for the purpose of verifying the documents.)

The document marked A (the order of the Court of Queen's Bench quashing

the former order of removal and order of Sessions) was then alone offered in evidence; but on the part of the respondents it was objected-firstly, that the evidence then given, so far as it related to the document marked A, was not sufficient to shew that that document was a true copy of the judgment, as set forth in the said record; and, secondly, that the evidence of the judgment, singly and alone, could not be received; the proper evidence of the other matters comprised in the same record ought at the same time to be adduced. The Court of Quarter Sessions overruled the objection in so far as it rested on the ground firstly in this objection above stated, and held that the evidence was sufficient to shew that the documents were true copies of the original; but held the objection good upon the ground secondly taken, subject to the opinion of the Court on two questions, namely, the questions thirdly and fourthly hereinafter respectively stated. The several documents respectively marked A, B, C, and D (subject, as to each, to the like objection as that firstly taken and stated to the admissibility of the documents marked A), being copies of all the documents and matters comprised in the said record, were then received and read; and, on the part of the appellants, it was contended that the respondents were estopped, bound, and concluded by the said judgment, as stated in the said first and second grounds of this appeal. On the part of the respondents it was contended, in the first place, that it appeared that the original order, as well as the order of Sessions, was quashed for insufficiency, and that for any thing that appeared in evidence, the judgment aforesaid might have been given on a matter or matters not affecting the question of the last legal settlement of the paupers. But the respondents were not called upon to offer, and did not offer, any evidence to shew that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench on the case aforesaid proceeded on any point other than the point of settlement. The Court of Quarter Sessions held that, on the case as it then stood, the appellants had not given any evidence to sustain the objections taken in the first and second grounds of this appeal, but subject to the opinion of this Court on the third and fourth questions hereinafter stated. The appellants then tendered the evidence of the appellants' solicitor, Mr. Naylor, as to this part of the case, which was as follows:

That he, the witness, was present in the Court of Queen's Bench, at Westminster, on the 1st day of May last, during the whole of the argument upon, and hearing of, the said former appeal, and during the time when the judgment of this Court thereon was being delivered. That he was able, if required, to state the grounds on which the judgment aforesaid was declared by the Court to be grounded, and to state the expressions of the Lord Chief Justice on delivering that judgment on the part of the appellants.

The witness was then required to do so; but, on the part of the respondents, it was objected that the evidence was inadmissible, and so it was held by the Court of Quarter Sessions, subject to the opinion of this Court on the question fifthly hereinafter stated. The Court of Quarter Sessions confirmed the said order now appealed against, subject to the opinion of this Court on the five questions following, that is to say:

First. Whether the respondents' objection to the notice of appeal, for the cause above stated, ought or ought not to have prevailed?

If the objection ought to have prevailed, the order of removal and of Sessions, in this appeal, to be confirmed. If the objection ought not to have prevailed, then

Secondly, Whether the examinations and order, now appealed against, or either of them, ought, for the causes stated in the third and fourth grounds of this appeal, or either of them, to have been held insufficient, then (subject to

the decision of this Court on the question first above stated) the order of removal and of Sessions, in this appeal, to be respectively quashed; but if sufficient, then

Thirdly, Whether the evidence, as hereinbefore set forth, ought, by the Court of Quarter Sessions, to have been held sufficient to render admissible the several documents respectively marked A, B, C, and D, as aforesaid, or any or either, and which of them? If this Court should be of opinion that all and each of the said documents ought to have been rejected, as inadmissible, then the order of removal and of Sessions, in this appeal, subject to the decision of this Court on the question secondly above stated, to be confirmed.

Fourthly. If this Court should be of opinion that the document marked A should have been held admissible, then, considering its effect in conjunction with the other matters above stated, and that, either alone, or along with the documents marked B, C, and D, or any of them, if admissible, whether the Court of Quarter Sessions should have held the respondents in this appeal to be estopped and concluded by the judgment aforesaid? If this Court should be of opinion that the respondents ought to be estopped, then the order of removal and of Sessions, in this appeal, subject to the decision of the Court on the questions firstly and thirdly above stated, to be respectively quashed. But if the Court should be of opinion that the Court of Quarter Sessions were right in holding the judgment aforesaid not binding, then the order of removal and of Sessions, subject to the opinion of the Court on the question secondly above and next hereinafter stated, to be confirmed.

Fifthly. Whether the Court of Quarter Sessions ought to have permitted the appellants to shew, by parol evidence, the grounds of the decision of the Court on the case in the former appeal? If so, it is admitted on both sides that such decision did in fact proceed on the insufficiency of the examinations on which that order was made, in respect of shewing the settlement of the paupers. And in that case, if the Court of Queen's Bench should further be of opinion that the quashing of the former order (on the ground that the examinations on which it was made did not sufficiently shew that the paupers were settled in Leeds) was such a quashing as to be conclusive on the question of the then settlement of the paupers, between the two townships, then the order now appealed against, and the order of Sessions confirming the same, are, subject to the opinion of the Court on the questions firstly and thirdly above stated, to be respectively quashed. If the Court should not be of that opinion, then the order of removal, and order of Sessions, to be confirmed, subject to the second objection hereinbefore stated.

Cowling, in support of the order of Sessions.-The respondents abandon their objection to the notice of appeal, and the remaining questions submitted by the case resolve themselves into two: first, whether the examinations, and the orders made thereon, are insufficient, on the ground that they neither shew that the paupers were inhabiting in Preston, or within the jurisdiction of the justices who made the order. That objection is wholly without foundation; the paupers are chargeable to the parish and resident in the workhouse of the union, which is for this purpose part of the parish, and the order is in the usual form: " Complaint having been made by the overseers of the poor of the township of Preston, in the borough of Preston, in the county of Lancaster, unto us, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the borough aforesaid, that M. R., &c. have come to inhabit in the said township of Preston." Secondly, whether there was sufficient evidence of the judgment of this Court in the former case; and if so, whether that judgment is an estoppel in the present. It is admitted that there was evidence of the judgment of this

Court, but that judgment is no estoppel upon the respondents in the present appeal. That judgment was, that the order be quashed upon a ground which did not go to the merits. The case which was then stated for the opinion of the Court unfortunately used the expression "for deficiency in the examination;" but that could not be used in the ordinary sense, because one of the objections was to the form of the order. [COLERIDGE, J.-Is not the proper course to quash generally, leaving the ground of the decision open to future inquiry? Here it was quashed for deficiency in the examination; that may import a decision either on a formal or a substantial objection; and it is the same, therefore, as a general quashing.] The only question now submitted to this Court upon that point is whether the judgment of this Court is conclusive; and whether that judgment was to quash for insufficiency of the examinations, or to quash generally, is immaterial, because in effect they amount to the same thing. The insufficiency of the examinations may or may not have been such as to render the judgment founded upon it conclusive; and the Sessions have not found whether the quashing was upon the merits, or upon a matter of form only; nor have they asked this Court whether the former order ought to have been quashed upon the merits or for form. The Sessions may even have heard evidence as to the real ground of the decision; for they only ask this Court as to the conclusiveness of the judgment of this Court. All that the cases decide is, that a quashing for insufficiency of the examinations may be on the merits. (Reg. v. Widdecombe, 16 L. J. M. C. 44; 2 New Mag. Cas. 64; 2 New S. C. 539; Reg. v. Landkey, 16 L. J. M. C. 81; 2 New Mag. Cas. 173; 2 New S. C. 623.) The case of Reg. v. Ellel (7 Q. B. 593; 14 L. J. M. C. 127, n.) is the strongest authority against the respondents. The marginal note of the case is," Appellants against an order of removal objected, in their grounds of appeal, that the examination did not properly shew the residence necessary to the acquiring a settlement, and that other specified facts were insufficiently alleged; they also denied the settlement. At the sessions this order was, on motion of the said respondents, set aside for insufficiency of examination.' Afterwards the respondents again removed the paupers to the appellant township on an examination disclosing substantially the same grounds of settlement as before:-Held, on appeal against the second order of removal, that the first order of Sessions was conclusive between the parties on the point of settlement." In that case, therefore, a quashing on the merits was assumed from the mere statement that the quashing proceeded on the insufficiency of the examinations; but the present case is different. The order of this Court is merely to quash generally; and the question is whether that judgment is conclusive. In Reg. v. Kingsclere (3 Q. B. 388), the Sessions made a special entry that the order was not quashed upon the merits. The objection upon which it was quashed was, that the examination did not state the time of relief; and this Court held, that they had, under these circumstances, no materials for deciding whether the special entry was right or wrong, and that the Sessions were the fit judges upon that point. As to the fact here, nothing could have been further from the merits than the decision in the former case, which turned upon the accidental omission of the word the from the examination; and now a settlement in Leeds is shewn beyond all dispute.

Hall and Pashley, contrà.-In settlement cases there are no substantial merits at all; there can be no equities in a contest between two parishes, which of them shall maintain a pauper. Here the main objection is presented at two stages in the proceeding at sessions. Upon the trial of the appeal, the case took this course: the respondents established a primâ facie case, and then